LMAO imagine believing that Russia doesn’t know where Ukraine is gaining ground from Russia. 😂
edit: love the NAFO downvote brigade here, you guys are adorable. Just trying to imagine how brain dead somebody has to be to think that Russia doesn’t know where Ukraine is attacking Russian held territory.
I don’t like getting downvoted for my opinions either and I understand that upsets a lot of us but you’re coming off a little harsh in various comments despite how right you are. Chill out a bit, my guy 👍
Imagine Russia not having it’s shit together enough to put down a mutiny from a mercenary group.
We know Russia’s military is a disorganized mess. Even a well-organized military can struggle with getting up to date information from the front lines. A military in an authoritarian country where people are afraid of giving their leader bad news?
Yeah, Putin doesn’t know what’s going on in Ukraine. Best to keep him thinking that The glorious Russian Army has destroyed 4000 Leopard 2 tanks today and the Ukrainian counter offensive has been a complete failure, just as his staff is telling him.
You must inhabit an alternate universe where Russia didn’t put down the mutiny of a mercenary group under 24 hours without bloodshed. Meanwhile, Russia’s military is such a disorganized west that Ukraine ran into a wall trying to do their offensive after being pump full of the best weapons the west has to offer. One has to be utterly delusional to think that an offensive that failed to reach the first line of defence after 4 weeks is anything but a complete failure. Here’s how things were expected to go by the way https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/18/ukraine-russia-war-counteroffensive-attack-bakhmut-himars/
@yogthos@SpaceCowboy Pffft… they didn’t “put down” a mutiny. The Dictator of Belarus did. Putin is a weak ass coward and won’t be in power much longer.
That’s certainly an interpretation. Using this logic all of NATO is pretty weak since it takes all of NATO to provide the hodgepodge of support needed to prop up Ukraine in the war.
What demands of Prigozhin did they give in to, be specific. Last I checked his demands were that Shoigu and Gerasimov have to be replaced. Last I checked they’re still in the same positions they were in, but maybe you know something I don’t? Or more likely you have no clue regarding the topic you’re attempting to debate.
Generally when there’s a coup, those complicit either go to prison or are executed.
After this “failed coup”, Prigozhin can go back to Africa with the men loyal to him. He avoids having to be in the front lines during the Ukrainian counter offensive and does so while appearing strong. I suspect Prigozhin has a better sense of how the Ukrainian counter offensive will go than you do. He avoids a possible collapse of the Russian Federation. When things go badly for Russia, he can say he warned everyone, and did what he could to prevent it. When the Putin regime collapses he will be well regarded in Russia.
And that’s just the parts of the deal that are publicly known.
Meanwhile what did Putin get? One day he addressed the nation and declared Prigozhin a criminal and terrorist. Then the next day Prigozhin marches on Moscow. Then suddenly all is forgiven, Prigozhin and Wagner are not criminals and terrorists. Kinda a bad look isn’t it? Just letting criminals and terrorists off the hook like that?
Seems the only thing Putin got was he didn’t get removed from power. And even that’s not certain… has Putin been seen publicly since his address where he declared Prigozhin a back-stabbing criminal? I guess we’ll have to wait and see…
That’s a lot of words to say that none of the demands were met. What Putin got was to avoid bloodshed, keep wagner and subordinate it to MoD by forcing it into official contracts with the MoD. Cleaned house by ferreting out any elements in the government or military that were supportive of a coup. I suspect that you are huffing copium at a faster rate than Ukraine is losing leopards in their offensive. 😂
I’m not really seeing any territory worth a mention on the map. Seems like another one of claims Ukraine likes to make that doesn’t have any substance behind it.
edit: not sure what exactly people are downvoting, there’s no meaningful change on the live pro Ukrainian map
Every source is superbiased. If people don’t see it, it’s because they share the same bias. Yogthos is consistently biased towards the truth and provides link after link.
It should be clear to anyone who reads those links that those who downvote either aren’t reading the links or are so ideologically driven that they can’t accept different viewpoints. If summaries based on the sources or if the sources themselves are faulty, I for one would like to see an argument as to why.
What is usually seen, however, are responses that refuse to acknowledge basic facts, like the historic and containing malevolence of NATO. And this is really weird because progressive liberals tend to accept said facts and criticise the evil empire because they think it can be reformed and capitalism perfected. While conservative liberals tend to accept said facts and be proud of what the evil empire has achieved and is achieving.
To just deny the reality is… well it suggests a lack of basic knowledge of history and/or severe cognitive dissonance. That, or a certain kind of propagandist… ten years ago, I’d have said that option was a bit melodramatic, but today? World politics are moving quickly.
This isn’t targeted at you, btw – you’ve only made one comment so far, and it’s a sensible one. You just made me think about why Yogthos gets so downvoted and gets these kinds of responses.
As Yogthos sometimes gets mass downvoted merely for posting links and providing short summaries, I thought you were just making a balanced observation rather than an ad hominem argument.
I agree there are levels of bias. I just think it’s always there.
I had, thankfully(?) never heard of NewsMax before. It looks rather right wing from a brief glance. I think you’re right, too, that some outlets qualify as ‘absolute bullshitters’.
Does this then take us to a distinction between bias and, for want of a better phrase, ‘fake news’?
The Economist and the Guardian can be very subtle about their biases (and bullshit) but it is always there.
The Guardian, for instance, appears to be quite progressive but except for a few columnists it could be my least favourite paper because in fact it’s (neo)liberal. It uses it’s progressive appearance to lure in readers with the right ideas about e.g. immigration or healthcare. But it fundamentally agrees with markets, competition, etc, rarely if ever presenting challenges to those assumptions.
And then when there’s a possibility of change, it frames the change-maker as unreasonable, a hopeless dreamer, or wholly unhinged. An example of this came up here last week, maybe. The Guardian was praising a move in India(?) to provide free broadband to millions of people. This was a policy of Jeremy Corbyn. It was branded broadband communism (not by the Guardian). Then the Guardian’s editorial line was to join all other mainstream media in sabotaging Corbyn’s election. It only supports progressive politics until there’s a chance of implementing them.
The Economist is unashamedly liberal, too. At the moment it’s neoliberal, often quite Hayekian. I don’t read it regularly but I used to and I can’t remember ever reading a good faith story that involved anything connected to communism or socialism (including democratic socialism). Any positive thing to say about China, for example, has to be wrapped up as a back-handed compliment, at best.
I wouldn’t say this is necessarily willful misinformation by their writers (who are often young graduates and unattributed). But those writers wouldn’t be hired if they had any other politics. They are hired because they have the same biases as the owners. And if they don’t, they’ve learned to keep their own politics to themselves.
A great book on media bias is Flat Earth News by Nick Davies. It’s gripping and easy to read. The structure of news media production means it cannot be anything but biased, although again in agreement with you, this does depend on what we mean by bias and what by outright lies.
where? https://liveuamap.com/
I know. What ground specifically
Shit article as expected from Business Insider
These maps are on something like a 2 to 3 day delay now.
They don’t want to give Russia too much information on what’s going on.
LMAO imagine believing that Russia doesn’t know where Ukraine is gaining ground from Russia. 😂
edit: love the NAFO downvote brigade here, you guys are adorable. Just trying to imagine how brain dead somebody has to be to think that Russia doesn’t know where Ukraine is attacking Russian held territory.
From what we’ve seen recently it sounds like Russia doesn’t even know when Russia is attacking Russia
I don’t like getting downvoted for my opinions either and I understand that upsets a lot of us but you’re coming off a little harsh in various comments despite how right you are. Chill out a bit, my guy 👍
👍
Hang on, so Russia doesn’t get it’s intelligence from the world wide web?
Yeah, first place they check when their positions are under attack is the liveuamap.com obviously.
Imagine Russia not having it’s shit together enough to put down a mutiny from a mercenary group.
We know Russia’s military is a disorganized mess. Even a well-organized military can struggle with getting up to date information from the front lines. A military in an authoritarian country where people are afraid of giving their leader bad news?
Yeah, Putin doesn’t know what’s going on in Ukraine. Best to keep him thinking that The glorious Russian Army has destroyed 4000 Leopard 2 tanks today and the Ukrainian counter offensive has been a complete failure, just as his staff is telling him.
You must inhabit an alternate universe where Russia didn’t put down the mutiny of a mercenary group under 24 hours without bloodshed. Meanwhile, Russia’s military is such a disorganized west that Ukraine ran into a wall trying to do their offensive after being pump full of the best weapons the west has to offer. One has to be utterly delusional to think that an offensive that failed to reach the first line of defence after 4 weeks is anything but a complete failure. Here’s how things were expected to go by the way https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/04/18/ukraine-russia-war-counteroffensive-attack-bakhmut-himars/
I like how you used west as a synonym for west. I mean mess. Damn, it’s catchy, Yog “Samuel Johnson” Thos. Chefs’ kiss.
@yogthos @SpaceCowboy Pffft… they didn’t “put down” a mutiny. The Dictator of Belarus did. Putin is a weak ass coward and won’t be in power much longer.
Oh hey, remind me how Lukashenko survived a coup again, oh that’s right Russia got involved.
@yogthos Exactly, which pretty much tells you that neither can stand on their own feet. They have to prop each other up. Weak.
That’s certainly an interpretation. Using this logic all of NATO is pretty weak since it takes all of NATO to provide the hodgepodge of support needed to prop up Ukraine in the war.
Yeah they “put down” Wagner by giving in to the demands of Prigozhin. That’s what happened in the universe I inhabit.
Putin was humiliated and proven to be weak.
Sorry that the great Red Army reborn turned out to be more like the army of Czar Nicholas II in 1917.
What demands of Prigozhin did they give in to, be specific. Last I checked his demands were that Shoigu and Gerasimov have to be replaced. Last I checked they’re still in the same positions they were in, but maybe you know something I don’t? Or more likely you have no clue regarding the topic you’re attempting to debate.
Generally when there’s a coup, those complicit either go to prison or are executed.
After this “failed coup”, Prigozhin can go back to Africa with the men loyal to him. He avoids having to be in the front lines during the Ukrainian counter offensive and does so while appearing strong. I suspect Prigozhin has a better sense of how the Ukrainian counter offensive will go than you do. He avoids a possible collapse of the Russian Federation. When things go badly for Russia, he can say he warned everyone, and did what he could to prevent it. When the Putin regime collapses he will be well regarded in Russia.
And that’s just the parts of the deal that are publicly known.
Meanwhile what did Putin get? One day he addressed the nation and declared Prigozhin a criminal and terrorist. Then the next day Prigozhin marches on Moscow. Then suddenly all is forgiven, Prigozhin and Wagner are not criminals and terrorists. Kinda a bad look isn’t it? Just letting criminals and terrorists off the hook like that?
Seems the only thing Putin got was he didn’t get removed from power. And even that’s not certain… has Putin been seen publicly since his address where he declared Prigozhin a back-stabbing criminal? I guess we’ll have to wait and see…
That’s a lot of words to say that none of the demands were met. What Putin got was to avoid bloodshed, keep wagner and subordinate it to MoD by forcing it into official contracts with the MoD. Cleaned house by ferreting out any elements in the government or military that were supportive of a coup. I suspect that you are huffing copium at a faster rate than Ukraine is losing leopards in their offensive. 😂
Territory near krasnohorivka (or however it’s spelled) apparently
https://kbin.social/m/worldnews@lemmy.ml/t/91047
I’m not really seeing any territory worth a mention on the map. Seems like another one of claims Ukraine likes to make that doesn’t have any substance behind it.
edit: not sure what exactly people are downvoting, there’s no meaningful change on the live pro Ukrainian map
deleted by creator
Welcome to Lemmy!
Every source is superbiased. If people don’t see it, it’s because they share the same bias. Yogthos is consistently biased towards the truth and provides link after link.
It should be clear to anyone who reads those links that those who downvote either aren’t reading the links or are so ideologically driven that they can’t accept different viewpoints. If summaries based on the sources or if the sources themselves are faulty, I for one would like to see an argument as to why.
What is usually seen, however, are responses that refuse to acknowledge basic facts, like the historic and containing malevolence of NATO. And this is really weird because progressive liberals tend to accept said facts and criticise the evil empire because they think it can be reformed and capitalism perfected. While conservative liberals tend to accept said facts and be proud of what the evil empire has achieved and is achieving.
To just deny the reality is… well it suggests a lack of basic knowledge of history and/or severe cognitive dissonance. That, or a certain kind of propagandist… ten years ago, I’d have said that option was a bit melodramatic, but today? World politics are moving quickly.
This isn’t targeted at you, btw – you’ve only made one comment so far, and it’s a sensible one. You just made me think about why Yogthos gets so downvoted and gets these kinds of responses.
deleted by creator
As Yogthos sometimes gets mass downvoted merely for posting links and providing short summaries, I thought you were just making a balanced observation rather than an ad hominem argument.
I agree there are levels of bias. I just think it’s always there.
I had, thankfully(?) never heard of NewsMax before. It looks rather right wing from a brief glance. I think you’re right, too, that some outlets qualify as ‘absolute bullshitters’.
Does this then take us to a distinction between bias and, for want of a better phrase, ‘fake news’?
The Economist and the Guardian can be very subtle about their biases (and bullshit) but it is always there.
The Guardian, for instance, appears to be quite progressive but except for a few columnists it could be my least favourite paper because in fact it’s (neo)liberal. It uses it’s progressive appearance to lure in readers with the right ideas about e.g. immigration or healthcare. But it fundamentally agrees with markets, competition, etc, rarely if ever presenting challenges to those assumptions.
And then when there’s a possibility of change, it frames the change-maker as unreasonable, a hopeless dreamer, or wholly unhinged. An example of this came up here last week, maybe. The Guardian was praising a move in India(?) to provide free broadband to millions of people. This was a policy of Jeremy Corbyn. It was branded broadband communism (not by the Guardian). Then the Guardian’s editorial line was to join all other mainstream media in sabotaging Corbyn’s election. It only supports progressive politics until there’s a chance of implementing them.
The Economist is unashamedly liberal, too. At the moment it’s neoliberal, often quite Hayekian. I don’t read it regularly but I used to and I can’t remember ever reading a good faith story that involved anything connected to communism or socialism (including democratic socialism). Any positive thing to say about China, for example, has to be wrapped up as a back-handed compliment, at best.
I wouldn’t say this is necessarily willful misinformation by their writers (who are often young graduates and unattributed). But those writers wouldn’t be hired if they had any other politics. They are hired because they have the same biases as the owners. And if they don’t, they’ve learned to keep their own politics to themselves.
A great book on media bias is Flat Earth News by Nick Davies. It’s gripping and easy to read. The structure of news media production means it cannot be anything but biased, although again in agreement with you, this does depend on what we mean by bias and what by outright lies.
Whatever Toronto.
That’s an amazing counterpoint you’ve mustered.